On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:54:05 -0500 Kent Yoder <[email protected]> wrote:
> > usr/lib/pkcs11/common/p11util.c | 463 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > usr/lib/pkcs11/common/p11util.h | 310 +++++++++++++++++++ > > usr/lib/pkcs11/common/template.c | 1 + > > usr/lib/pkcs11/common/utility.c | 74 ----- > > Hmm, we are pulling code out of common/utility.c to put in common/p11util.c? utility.c has all sorts of functions ranging from PKCS#11 interpretation to handling internal data representations. The idea was to take the PKCS#11 specific stuff out of this and other files and into p11util.c, so that the library itself, as well as the utilities and testcases could use them, while the internal-only stuff remains segregated into their own areas. > > > > diff --git a/usr/lib/pkcs11/common/p11util.c > > b/usr/lib/pkcs11/common/p11util.c > > new file mode 100755 > > index 0000000..7b60a36 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/usr/lib/pkcs11/common/p11util.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,463 @@ > > +/* > > + Common Public License Version 0.5 > > Do we need the full license in new files? If so I bet we are > missing it some other places, but last I knew having one LICENSE file > in the project root was ok... I'm not sure. Common sense says that the LICENSE file should be sufficient, but we do have a lot of those headers around. > The rest of the patch looks good, can you resend this as it applies > over the master branch? Will do. Thanks, -Klaus -- Klaus Heinrich Kiwi | [email protected] | http://blog.klauskiwi.com Open Source Security blog : http://www.ratliff.net/blog IBM Linux Technology Center : http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Opencryptoki-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opencryptoki-tech
